Let's take a look at the aggregate performance of these cards for an idea of where the Radeon R7 250X lands:

AMD's Radeon R7 250X performs roughly on par with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 650 Ti. It's notably better than the GeForce GTX 650 and Radeon R7 250 GDDR5.
What you don't see, however, is pricing. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti typically sells for around $130, while the slower GeForce GTX 650 starts at $105. Moreover, the Radeon R7 250 GDDR5 appears around $90. Is it really any wonder that we'd be fans of a Radeon HD 7770/R7 250X at $100?
Regardless of nomenclature, this card really does enable 1080p gaming on a budget. It never dipped below 30 FPS at the quality settings we used in our 1920x1080-based benchmarks. Average frame rates bottomed out at 45 FPS.
With the Radeon R7 250X looking so strong in the sub-$150 market, AMD's biggest problem is the cards surrounding it. How could we recommend the R7 250 GDDR5 for $10 less than a vastly superior 250X? Similarly, the two R7 260 cards on Newegg (selling for $125 and $140) are far too expensive compared to the more powerful R7 260X, which costs about the same amount.
If we could set prices, the Radeon R7 240 would go for $65, the Radeon R7 250 GDDR5 would be $80, and the Radeon R7 260 would sell for $115. In a world where the R7 250X costs $100, those numbers would make more sense.
Then again, if the worst thing we can say about a graphics card is that it makes other members of the same family look less attractive, how bad can it be? Yes, the Radeon R7 250X is a blatant rehash of the Radeon HD 7770. Yes, I think that AMD should have at least tuned its reference clock rates before assigning a new name. And, yes, a $100 Radeon R7 250X represents the best mainstream graphics card under $120. It's the lowest-priced gateway to 1080p gaming at the moment.
Why wouldn't we? What's wrong with an overclocked 2500K?
If you read this review you would see that the R7 250X is *exactly* the same as the 7770.
It does not have 384 shaders, it has 640. You're thinking of the R7 250, not the new R7 250X.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. We use detail settings that make sense for the boards we test.
Seeing a 290X get 200 FPS at low settings doesn't provide much insight, nor does it make sense to use high resolutions and details playable on the 290X that deliver 8 FPS on low-end cards.
That's not how it works, Achoo. I mention Newegg because I use them as a price indicator, not because we have any directive to do so.
The content management system will automatically target any keywords that pay and highlight them as links. Welcome to the future...
Why wouldn't we? What's wrong with an overclocked 2500K?
If you read this review you would see that the R7 250X is *exactly* the same as the 7770.
It does not have 384 shaders, it has 640. You're thinking of the R7 250, not the new R7 250X.
Because:
1) it works
2) for most games and low/mid-range GPUs, it is also just about as fast as the fastest current CPUs so there is no actual urge to use the highest-powered, newest and latest CPUs available.
You can't even buy a 2500K new. Use something newer that a new build with this card might actually have in it or be able to buy new.
You're kidding, right?
You responded to a thread titled:
"Radeon R7 250X Review: Reprising Radeon HD 7770 At $100"
with the words:
"why would you get this card? why not get the 7770 that's now in the same price range and has 256 more shaders instead."
...I mean, come on. That doesn't make a lot of sense in context.
You can't even buy a 2500K new. Use something newer that a new build with this card might actually have in it or be able to buy new.
An overclocked 2500K is worlds faster than a stock 4650K. Stock they're incredibly close when it comes to gaming.
Really, Intel hasn't improved IPC much since Sandy Bridge. Ivy and Haswell have been all about graphics improvements.
They may have some i5-4670k rigs but that does not mean all reviewers have access to it: individual reviewers have their own permanent rigs based on their long-term testing requirements (act as a reference CPU so all future benchmarks for the foreseeable future remain valid comparisons against the original rig) and other parts may get shuffled around between reviewers located in different cities, states or even countries. Using "one of their 4670k" is easier said than done if the reviewer lives 500km from the nearest other THG reviewer who happens to have one to spare.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. We use detail settings that make sense for the boards we test.
Seeing a 290X get 200 FPS at low settings doesn't provide much insight, nor does it make sense to use high resolutions and details playable on the 290X that deliver 8 FPS on low-end cards.
That's not how it works, Achoo. I mention Newegg because I use them as a price indicator, not because we have any directive to do so.
The content management system will automatically target any keywords that pay and highlight them as links. Welcome to the future...
Most people shopping for a new graphics card already know either the price range or performance level they are interested in and ignore anything that is more than about a rung up/down from that since this is all they usually need to confirm that prices seem to line up with expectations.
Having more models for a full-blown roundup/chart, sure. But for a review more intended to pin down for whom this model may make sense, comparing it to its nearest equivalents and next models up/down the food chain is fair enough IMO.